Scepcop wrote:What was revealing was that in the end (part 10) Richard Dawkins admitted that he and no one else knows how life began and how the first cell become self-replicating. He said that no one, including him, had the answer to that. Ben Stein should have then asked "So if no one knows, why can't God be a possibility?" but he didn't.

If Stein had asked him that question, Dawkins would not have hesitated before answering: "yes, God is a possibility".

Hi all,I just finished watching "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It was very good and engaging. And it was successful in proving that there IS in fact suppression of freethought and dissent in the scientific community, to the point that if you publish one article about intelligent design (not about God or religion), then your career is over and you are blacklisted from rehire. This goes for scientists, professors and journalists as well.

What was revealing was that in the end (part 10) Richard Dawkins admitted that he and no one else knows how life began and how the first cell become self-replicating. He said that no one, including him, had the answer to that. Ben Stein should have then asked "So if no one knows, why can't God be a possibility?" but he didn't.

However, the film lacked in several areas:

1) It did not present the core arguments of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design so it was not educational in that sense. It mostly presented soundbytes on both sides and focused on the suppression of dissension in the science establishment while interviewing those who lost their careers for writing about intelligent design. It should have presented the key arguments on both sides and weighed them.

2) At one point, the film lumped the Darwinists and the Nazi Eugenicists into the same category, as though one leads to the other. That is a big jump and would offend many Darwinists and Atheists. Most Atheists have decent morals and do not advocate murder, eugenics, ethnic cleansing or mass genocide. That would be the equivalent of lumping all intelligent design believers with Bible thumpers and those who want the government to be based on a theocracy.

3) There was too much propaganda about "freedom is what makes America great" as if no other country has freedom but America. That is a pure myth and religious mantra not supported by any evidence or logical reasons. In most countries (not North Korea or the Middle East) as long as you obey the laws and pay your bills, you can do whatever you want or go anywhere you want, which is the same for America. There is no evidence that the US has less laws and regulations than most countries, but in fact probably has more.

Anyway, you should all see the whole film. It was eye opening and worth watching, yet disturbing at the same time when you realize how truth and open discussion is suppressed in America.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

I stopped 41 seconds in after they brought up Behe and the flagellum. Flagellum have been explained from an evolutionary perspective. You would know this if you spent even a minute double checking your facts. Here's an article discussing it: it is one of many: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... mplex.html

Irreducible complexity is basically a gaps argument. Look at the flagellum: it can't be explained by the TOE! Oh wait, it can? Ok, let's look for something else that can't be explained.

Also, why post videos which are always vague? If you want to bring in Behe, why not post actual papers that he's written? Videos are hard to analyse: they take a long time to listen to and there's no cutting and pasting. Much better to go with the actual articles, imo.

If there's anything of worth in the video after 41 seconds, let me know!

Arouet wrote:Also, why post videos which are always vague? If you want to bring in Behe, why not post actual papers that he's written? Videos are hard to analyse: they take a long time to listen to and there's no cutting and pasting. Much better to go with the actual articles, imo

Its obvious why Scepcop/Winston doesn't do that and its because he doesn't know the first thing about these topics, all he sees is that a few fringe guys are disagreeing with the mainstream.

I,m against the formula of Evolution what is being sold to us.Yeah,evolution can exist,but only if you manipulate it delibiteraly,because randomly genetic mutations cause more harm than good.and macroevolution still remains to be proven,I have seen some,which the scientists consider as evidence for it,the recent one being Tiktaalik but it may just be a species what have just died off.so still clear transition from the fossil record has not been shown on any species and definitely humans.Homo Erectus is very different from modern humans.There is evidence for it,that they actually lived together in some time.Also in molecular biology,some scientists challenge evolution theory,because these systems in our cells just can,t be there by chance.Also I challenge the uniformitarian theories of modern geology,I think that the whole chronology of the earth is so messed up,that we have to start researching all over again.

Well, some random mutations will be harmful, some not have much effect at all, and some will be beneficial. The harmful ones are less likely to reproduce. The beneficial ones more likely to reproduce. That's how it happens.

There is no such thing as macroevolution. Or rather, macroevolution is simply microevolution, with a lot of steps in between. Every single fossil is a transitional fossil. When a gap is filed, it simply creates two more gaps. We are lucky that we have any fossils at all, but understand that evolutionary thery does not depend on fossils, although they are certainly helpful.

Here is a helpful article for you to look at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ It's a worthwhile read and will take you through a lot of the scientific (and falsifiable) evidence in favour of macro-evolution.

Can you link to an article showing that some systems in our cells can't be there by chance? Is it in a peer reviewed journal? What does the scientific community say about it?

I don't know a lot about geology: how old do you think the earth is, and why do you think the current consensus is incorrect?

OmegaChaos wrote:I,m against the formula of Evolution what is being sold to us.Yeah,evolution can exist,but only if you manipulate it delibiteraly,because randomly genetic mutations cause more harm than good.and macroevolution still remains to be proven,I have seen some,which the scientists consider as evidence for it,the recent one being Tiktaalik but it may just be a species what have just died off.so still clear transition from the fossil record has not been shown on any species and definitely humans.Homo Erectus is very different from modern humans.There is evidence for it,that they actually lived together in some time.Also in molecular biology,some scientists challenge evolution theory,because these systems in our cells just can,t be there by chance.Also I challenge the uniformitarian theories of modern geology,I think that the whole chronology of the earth is so messed up,that we have to start researching all over again.

OmegaChaos wrote:I,m against the formula of Evolution what is being sold to us.Yeah,evolution can exist,but only if you manipulate it delibiteraly,because randomly genetic mutations cause more harm than good.and macroevolution still remains to be proven,I have seen some,which the scientists consider as evidence for it,the recent one being Tiktaalik but it may just be a species what have just died off.so still clear transition from the fossil record has not been shown on any species and definitely humans.Homo Erectus is very different from modern humans.There is evidence for it,that they actually lived together in some time.Also in molecular biology,some scientists challenge evolution theory,because these systems in our cells just can,t be there by chance.Also I challenge the uniformitarian theories of modern geology,I think that the whole chronology of the earth is so messed up,that we have to start researching all over again.

I see you've been well programed to speak the views of churchianity

PLEASE... actually go to school and study this topic closely before throwing a lot of half-truths around.

Craig Browning wrote:I see you've been well programed to speak the views of churchianity

PLEASE... actually go to school and study this topic closely before throwing a lot of half-truths around.

No need to go back to school. There are plenty of good books written by experts in layman's terms that explain it well. Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution, is exellent. If you don't like Dawkins for other reasons non-related to his work as a biologist, there are some other well known primers on evolution out there too. Also, for those interested, there's a whole course on evolution available on Itunes U. Not to mention the talkorigins website.

I have yet to see someone who professes not to "buy" evolutionary theory show any actual familiarity with the actual evidence.

Arouet wrote:No need to go back to school. There are plenty of good books written by experts in layman's terms that explain it well. Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution, is exellent. If you don't like Dawkins for other reasons non-related to his work as a biologist, there are some other well known primers on evolution out there too. Also, for those interested, there's a whole course on evolution available on Itunes U. Not to mention the talkorigins website.

I have yet to see someone who professes not to "buy" evolutionary theory show any actual familiarity with the actual evidence.

I,m not a creationist,I just say that we need a new alternative.Both creationism and darwinism are wrong,I think.There is microevolution and macroevolution...microevolution is when some body part changes, some shape or color etc.but they don,t transform totally,like macroevolution states.

CraigBrowning wrote:ell programed to speak the views of churchianity

PLEASE... actually go to school and study this topic closely before throwing a lot of half-truths around

There have been 5 extinction events and after them new species appear suddenly.

Darwin at the beginning was really wondering about it.

When then has exterminated so many species and whole genera?The mind is at first irresistibly hurried into belief of some great catastrophe,but thus to destroy animals both large and small.we must shake the entire framework of the globe.No lesser physical event could have brought about wholesale destruction not only in the Amerikas but in the entire world....certainly no fact in the long history of the world is so startling as the wide and repeated extermination of it,s inhabitants.

Charles Darwin(Quote drom journal,on his Voyage of the H.M.S Beagle)

And you ask why Scepcop don,t want to debate these things...well I don,t really want either....It just wastes energy...I just throw my message out,you can make up your mind yourself.

OmegaChaos wrote:I,m not a creationist,I just say that we need a new alternative.Both creationism and darwinism are wrong,I think.There is microevolution and macroevolution...microevolution is when some body part changes, some shape or color etc.but they don,t transform totally,like macroevolution states.

But they're the same thing! We're talking about incremental changes. But add enough of them together, one after the other, and suddenly they look like big changes, do you follow? But the mama and baby are always going to look pretty much the same! At some point, when enough small incremental changes have occurred, in order to help classification we label a new species.

I took a quick look. The article makes a lot of predictions that it then says don't play out, but gives no reason for why it believes that those predictions should play out. I'm no expert on evolution, but even to me it seems that it makes a lot of predictions that actual evolutionary biologists wouldn't make. Read that article, 29+ Evidences, and you'll see understand a little better what they're actually looking at.

The modern theory of evolution has been spectacularly successful in its predictions and its impact is widespread. Certainly it hasn't figured out everything and continues to evolve itself. But just saying that it needs to be fundamentally rethought is not justified currently. Perhaps it will be one day, but not based on Milton's arguments, which have been discredited by actual evolutionary biologists.

And you ask why Scepcop don,t want to debate these things...well I don,t really want either....It just wastes energy...I just throw my message out,you can make up your mind yourself.

Not wanting to debate is a good way to remain entrenched in your existing beliefs, which may be erroneous.